Formal Verification for Smart Contracts
Testing checks that code works for the inputs you tried. Formal verification proves it works for all possible inputs. For high-value contracts where "probably correct" isn't good enough, we mathematically verify that critical properties hold, unconditionally.
When Testing Isn't Enough
Fuzzing and unit tests cover the scenarios you think of. Formal verification covers the ones you don't. For contracts managing billions in TVL, the difference matters.
Formal verification uses mathematical proofs to guarantee that specified properties hold for every possible execution path, not just the paths covered by test cases. If your invariant says "total shares must equal total assets," formal verification proves this is true for every possible sequence of deposits, withdrawals, and state changes. No test suite can make that claim.
Our Methodology
We combine formal verification with traditional auditing: mathematical proofs layered on top of manual review.
Property Specification
Work with your team to define critical invariants, the properties your protocol must never violate. These become the formal verification targets.
Model Construction
Build formal models of your contracts using appropriate tools (Certora, Halmos, symbolic execution). Translate code semantics into verifiable specifications.
Verification & Counterexample Analysis
Run provers against the specification. Analyze any counterexamples. Each one represents a concrete scenario where an invariant can be violated.
Coverage Assessment
Evaluate what percentage of critical properties are formally verified vs. only tested. Identify remaining attack surface.
Integration With Audit Report
Formal verification results delivered alongside manual audit findings. Verified properties documented with proof artifacts.
Vulnerability Classes We Target
These are the vulnerability patterns most relevant to this audit type: the ones that cause real losses.
Invariant Violations
Properties the protocol assumes are always true but can be broken by specific input sequences or state transitions.
Unreachable Code Assumptions
Code paths developers assume can't execute but are reachable under adversarial conditions.
Boundary Conditions
Edge cases at minimum/maximum values, empty states, or transition boundaries that tests typically don't cover exhaustively.
Cross-Function State Corruption
Complex state transitions spanning multiple function calls that can leave the contract in an inconsistent state.
Frequently Asked Questions
Related Services
Solidity Audits
Line-by-line Solidity smart contract audits combining manual review, static analysis, and fuzzing. Severity-rated findings with actionable remediation.
DeFi Security
Security audits for DeFi protocols: DEXs, lending, vaults, staking, and yield aggregators. Economic attack modeling, oracle analysis, and governance review.
Bridge Audits
Security audits for cross-chain bridges and messaging protocols. Multi-chain validation, relay security, and asset custody reviewed by experienced auditors.
Related Research
Aave's $27M Liquidation Incident: How a Stale Oracle Parameter Wiped Out 34 Users
A desynchronized oracle parameter caused Aave to undervalue wstETH by 2.85%, triggering $27M in wrongful liquidations across 34 users. Full technical breakdown.
researchWhat $10.77 Billion in Hacks Reveals About Audit Effectiveness
Analysis of 100 largest protocol hacks totaling $10.77B. Only 20% were audited, but the ones that were share a pattern. Firm comparison, verified exploit data, pricing, and evaluation criteria.
Secure Your Protocol
Get a quote for your formal verification engagement. We respond within 24 hours.
Request an Audit